When the speculation about the 2008 presidential election began 18 months ago, few predicted that rules would play such an important role. Money, media endorsements and momentum, sure. But delegate allocation was rarely – if ever – mentioned. For the first time in their lives, the most popular guests at chattering class dinner parties must be the anoraks who have consigned these intricacies to memory. Like the election of the Venetian Doge, who was chosen through a complicated sequence of votes, the Democratic decision is becoming drawn out. Some are even speculating as to whether this will help or hinder the Democrats.
The conventional wisdom – including some academic research – suggests that contested primaries tend to weaken candidates in the general election. This certainly appears to be a valid argument. The Democratic party convenes every four years to anoint its presidential candidate. Each state assigns delegates for each candidate in rough proportion to votes cast. By the time of the convention, the winner is normally known. But a potential scenario this year is that the Democratic presidential candidate will still be undecided when party dignitaries descend on Denver in August. This would leave the 800 members of Congress, state governors, and other elected officials known as ‘superdelegates’ to determine the outcome. In this scenario, the candidate with the popular vote may not secure the nomination. The resulting recriminations could leave a divided party to fight expected Republican nominee John McCain.
There is, though, another school of thought that as the campaign goes on, the free airtime generated by the primary race will favour whichever of Obama or Clinton ends up facing McCain. Despite all the excitement on both sides of the Atlantic, under 30 per cent of eligible voters went to the polls on Super Tuesday. This may be up significantly on 2004 but the truth is that most Americans have not taken an interest and will not for some time yet. Come November, name recognition for either candidate will be a powerful tool in the general election.
A second argument is that the Democratic party’s squabbling is nothing compared to that within the GOP. Although many Clinton and Obama supporters feel great antipathy towards their opponent, most Democrats are happy with the choice that faces them. According to the exit polls, 53 per cent of Californian voters would be satisfied with either senator. Contrast this with George Bush’s ‘endorsement’ of John McCain which included the faint praise, ‘he has got some convincing to do to convince people that he is a solid conservative.’ Indeed, at a Conservative Political Action Committee meeting last week McCain was booed when he mentioned immigration, an issue on which he is at odds with the Republican base.
Despite their deep divisions over social issues, taxation, and immigration reform, the Republicans have reached their decision by allocating every delegate in each state to the candidate who wins the popular vote. Victories in populous New York, New Jersey and California propelled McCain to the nomination. By contrast, the small ‘d’ democratic primary system, which is spinning out the decision for Clinton and Obama, should be seen as a good thing. Never has the choice over party candidate stirred such interest or intensity of debate. And for the first time ever, states like Virginia, Texas and North Carolina (which normally vote after the decision has become a fait accomplis) actually have a say. Whatever happens in the coming months McCain will make a formidable opponent, but there can be little substitute for voters all around the US making an informed decision about who should face him.